Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat To Drop Boxed Retail Distribution
An anonymous reader writes "Red Hat, the leading American distributor of Linux, is abandoning the retail channel, the company is expected to announce Monday, says this story in Linux and Main. Non-Red Hat developers will be given a greater role in deciding what's in upcoming Red Hat distributions, too."
Wonder why this is?
Has it anything to do with the KDE Klash? (Not likely though)
Or is it just that this way they don't loose as much money?
The latter, in my opinion (humble as it is) is the most likely. Of course, it could be something completely different.
Moderation: +4. Modded 70% Funny and 30% Overrated. 100% Saturated.
One thing that I noticed about linux was that it was on the store shelves of CompUSA. With packaged sets not available, does this mean Redhat is well known enough to not warrant having a copy available for passer-byers, or does it mean Redhat is slowly moving away from the desktop/average user arena? Discuss amongst yourselves
When someone is ready to try an alternative to Windows, its much easier to pick up the CDs rather than wait hours for a public download to finish...and lose the enthusiasm for a change in OS.
Solid!
Perhaps this may be a boon for MandrakeSoft? The novice home user who only wants to casually look at Linux or who lacks broadband might feel more comfortable going to the store to get Linux CDs.
...is this good or bad for Linux..?
As long as I can download the ISOs from Finland,
I dont' really care. Redhat's disto is great;
but their concentration on the server market
will hurt their reputation amoung the home
and desktop markets.
If it keeps them effective, cool. This part concerns me though:
--
The company hopes that the changes help to overcome the long lead time needed to produce boxed sets. With a six-month release cycle, and with the rapid pace of Linux development, many packages shipped on CD are obsolete before they ever reach retail shelves.
--
Kinda valid, but sounds more like their boxed versions simply aren't selling that well. Not blasting them by the way. I always buy my Linux distros just to support the company, and this is the now only company I get my Linux distro from. I trust they won't go away...
There must have been a misunderstanding here. Surely they don't think that their cash flow won't be injured if they stop producing shrinkwrap software? Both companies and Joe Sixpack like cardboard boxes and plastic CD cases. ISO-download-only would literally destroy their company.
Cantankerous old coot since 1957.
I guess this means that RH is going to focus almost entirely on B2B sales. I would imagine that the sales of the box sets barely offset the cost of marketing, etc. If they focus on business customers only, it probably simplifies their service commitments. I wonder if they'll sell service contracts and docs directly on the website, or if they'll just make the ISOs available and leave it at that.
Matt
I think Red Hat is making a mistake.
There is enormous PR value in having a retail product available, even if it is not particularily profitable.
Example: Ericsson is widely known as a "cell phone manufacturer". Actually, they make very little money off selling consumer products like cell phones. Ericsson has always made its money off the sales of system hardware. (switches and whatnot)
But it's the consumer products that have given them brand-recognition, and that is worth a lot.
I think Red Hat should take note of this.
This sounds like they are downsizing some of their workforce to me. Yes, I know that the article said this move was to improve release cycle times but it sounds like they are just plain getting rid of the retail line and there will be some layoffs too as certain people are no longer needed.
How about dialup users like me?
What will will do for businesses putting redhat on the desktop in regard to the RedHat trademark? Are they going to have to pay for it online, or will they drop all the trademark stuff for RedHat Linux?
Maybe this will make RedHat make like Debian in regards to trademarking, etc. Maybe not since they should still be selling the support packages.
...given that RedHat made most money from their support contract. I've been using Linux for 10 years, have tried a lot of distros, but never shelled out money for a boxed set, and especially these days, with broadband internet access and CD burners everywhere, I'd assume most people just download the ISO images anyway. I don't think RedHat ever made money with the boxed sets, and most people won't be affected by this move either.
Nothing to see here, move on.
Who's the leading distributor period?
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
The two options are not mutually exclusive.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Red Hat was probably hemorrhaging cash in the consumer retail arena... so rather than continue to fight a loosing battle, they're regrouping and doing what works for them.
It's a novel conect in the IT economy.... focus on what actually makes your company money, and dump what you loose money on. Red Hat isn't a Microsoft... they don't have the capital to piss away to maintain market share. They *need* to focus on what makes money.
I doubt that Redhat make much, if any profit through their retail to the general public so it makes sense for them to concentrate on their corporate clients and let joe six pack down load it if he wants it. Probably means layoffs for the people involved in the shrinkwrapping though
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Red Hat is provider for Linux OS for the Enterprises. They want to concentrate more on the RH 2.1 Advance Server, and not waste too much time on the retailing the distribution.
Moveover since the developers will be actually the one doing the packaging as well, Red Hat's job will become in including those packages in their ES/AS/WS distributions. Making the developer list open to all, will in-turn help them making their ES/AS/WS services better.
They want to be a service oriented company, rather than a product oriented. And this is the only Open Source Model that will survive.
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
This is definitely an unexpected move, but I'm not completely sure whether it's good or bad. I, personally, would never have bought the CDs, since I can just download the ISOs for free, and if I decided to get RHN, I could just register online.
However, now dialup users are basically screwed, unless they can order cds from LinuxISO or some similar site.
So it's kind of a toss-up. How many people were actually buying the boxed version is the real question. If not that many people were buying them, I can understand why they did this, because they were probably losing money.
Wouldn't it be better to have the both users and dev decide what they need? In all seriousness, I think the users and developers both need this input. The developers for the nuts and bolts and the users for the apps. This way both groups get what they want WITH what they need. BUT you need to leave a way to easily add components that were not included originally. RedHat is the most "corporate" of the *nixes, and has VERY limited choices out of the box (OO.org as default office is just one), so some more choices would be a good thing.
~corporate tool, but employed~
This is #2.
#1 was the one-year end-of-life policy:
I'm perfectly willing to pay extra for ongoing support on old Red Hat versions. I'm perfectly willing to upgrade remotely every year a-la FreeBSD buildworld. I'm perfectly willing to pay extra for a "Small Biz Server" product.
However, all Red HAt has to offer me is "hobbyist version" and an "advanced workstation".
Luckily, Linux is not Windows, I switched all servers to FreeBSD except a few that belong to clients. When they end-of-life, you can guess what OS they will be switched to.
Now here's strike #2: no more boxed set, which I bought regularly.
Tell me Red Hat, don't you want my money?
Who's the leading distributor period?
I believe that would be www.linuxiso.org
i don't think this will make a noticeable difference to Redhat's revenue. Isn't their biggest source of income their corporate customers? i.e. those buying things like Enterprise Edition with a support contract?
Follow me
Granted, it's not like they were getting $100 a year out of me before - for every boxed set I would pick up (because I was in a time/place where downloading would be inconvenient or just because I wanted to support the company) I've probably downloaded three sets of ISOs off mirror sites... but that still works out to $20 or $30 a year of my money that Red Hat saw. Were the boxed sets really a losing proposition for them?
When took one of RH's training classes a few years ago the instructor was telling us that less then 10% of RH's income is from the distro and they would drop it if they could. It was only a marketing tool for them. That most of RH's income is from support, training, and custom development.
Then look at RH's support model they are like Sun they don't want to deal with the lower tier customers, they only want to deal with the large corporations. Guess you could say Red Hat is turning into a traditional Unix company.
Red Hat to abandon retail channel
Posted on Saturday, July 19 @ 09:20:28 EDT by staff
Red Hat, the leading American distributor of Linux, is abandoning the retail channel, the company is expected to announce Monday.
The company's next major release, codenamed "Cambridge," will not be provided in boxed, retail form, according to company communications with employees and developers, which have been made available to Linux and Main.
Additionally, Red Hat plans extensive changes in its development and distribution model. The changes will begin with development lists being made public, and will be followed by return of package maintanence to the developers themselves. Currently, packages are "handed over" to Red Hat developers, who then tune them for inclusion in a particular version. Under the new system, developers will maintain control of the packages.
The company hopes that the changes help to overcome the long lead time needed to produce boxed sets. With a six-month release cycle, and with the rapid pace of Linux development, many packages shipped on CD are obsolete before they ever reach retail shelves.
The reorganization will take place following the release of "Cambridge," scheduled for this autumn.
Details of the new development and distribution model are expected to be announced Monday. The company says it plans to offer developers maximum freedom in deciding what is included in Red Hat Linux without Red Hat itself losing control of the distribution.
Formed in 1995, Red Hat Software has become the most widely used Linux distribution among enterprises in North America. It has concentrated in recent years on enterprise server rooms, training, and distribution by subscription.
Let's face it, RH is *NOT* targeted at the types of users who are going to pick up software at Best Buy and CompUSA. Even people who want to try linux are going to be put off by RH.
It's just not desktop/home friendly. No flash, no mp3 abilities, and GNOME, while much improved, isn't quite there yet. (File selection dialog, you know it)
This means that the only distro you're going to find at BB and CompUSA is going to be SuSE, at least until or if Mandrake ever manages to find another retail distributor.
RH is choosing to concentrate on the business space. Which is good, since their efforts there are somewhat lacking. (RHAS is dreadful, but with improvement it'd be decent)
Some times you've got to make bold decisions in business. Am sure redhat would have thought up alternative revenue streams to make money. If you're haemorrhaging money its time to think "is there a better way" not carry on down the same road haemorrhaging more money. Plus this packaging rethink would save them enough and, hopefully improve quality
Not sure about this move, I know a lot of people who like getting boxed sets of software with a good sized printed manual in it (SuSE for example includes two manuals in professional, totally over 1500 pages of stuff).
Also, with the whole "Linux is good for use in poor areas, third world countries and countries like india / china", how easy is it to get the software when dialup or internet cafe is the only way to access the net ?
What this says to me is that RedHat is pulling out of the "mainstream" desktop arena in a less than subtle way. It's going to be a slug-out between RedHat and SuSE for the server side of things, and RedHat wants to get lean and mean for the fight. I'd say that, in the eyes of RH execs, getting in shape means dumping the pounds associated with desktop distribution support. Sorta sad, but also sorta not. RH has been getting its butt kicked on the desktop for a while now, but has a chance to extend its lead in the back office. Time to have another look at SuSE desktop, maybe?
It's only funny until someone gets hurt. Then, it's hilarious.
I have a dialup connection, so a boxed distribution is absolutely essential to me. It isn't a choice between FooProg 1.12.4 and FooProg 1.14.6, it's a choice between Linux and Windows.
I could, I suppose, nip off to the nearest broadband internet cafe, download a load of stuff and burn it. But a box is easier.
This is the great thing with Linux - just because one company goes a certain way, you don't have to follow. Somebody will step in to let you go another.
I'm scared of numbers that can't be written as a fraction. It's an irrational fear.
Will I still be able to buy Red Hat on CD from the company? Downloading big ISOs is annoying, and I don't want to buy from some 3rd party vendor that just ships some burnt CDs. I still want an actual product ... nice CDs, manuals, et al. Is Red Hat doing away with this too, or just the distribution of it in stores - will I still be able to buy it directly from then? If not, how in the world is Linux supposed to compete with Microsoft if you can't even BUY IT?! (I know I know, it's available to download for free, but that's just not the same.)
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
Well have you? Redhat is a public company and as such they have to divulge how they made their money. You should look at their last quarterly statement.
The headline is inaccurate. The information that will be released on Monday is regarding the development direction of Red Hat Linux. Further information on the retail product line will be forthcoming closer to the product launch plan this fall.
Havoc Pennington
Red Hat, Inc.
I have never bought a boxed CD set. I never will it cost £40, if it cost $10 then I would, Linux is in demand at the moment, this demand will most likely grow companies should be working out how best to satisfy this demand not provide a product put some imaginary price on it then expect profits. Companies that satisfy a genuine need and give customers what they need thrive, others don't.
I don't get it. How can they have made all these moves to become a desktop distro (such as bluecurve and the ensuing controversies) and then they walk away from retail? Retail == desktops!
This move sounds to me like a concession that SuSE and Mandrake have won that market.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
I've never bought a boxed set of Red Hat because it always seemed that whatever was on the shelf was an old version. Unlike other commercial operating systems (which will remain unnamed) Red Hat and most Linux distros are constantly changing. It would be next to impossible to keep the latest versions freshly in retail, and the constant changes would probably confuse the average retail shopper. What I would like to see them do is to sell hardcopies of books and manuals.
IAAL
I have to acknowledge them for a good business move.
They have obviouly looked at the retail market and made the same observation as the rest of the software world: Don't attempt to compete with Microsoft in the channel.
Understand that Microsoft eats software companies for lunch by luring them into a den where the buyers for Office Depot, CompUSA, Best Buy, etc.don't know RedHat, Corel, Claris, etc. from the $1 CD's they sell from CD Specialists, Inc.
Microsoft pulls software companies into the retail space just to watch them LOSE money. Red Hat has decided to stop the bleeding.
Here's Another Point:
Nothing in this announcement says that Red Hat will stop providing media. They will continue to provide media just like every other software company you haven't heard about does.
Have you ever seen AIX on the retail store shelf?
This is a very smart move for Red Hat. You'll find the media out there, but someone else will provide ala Mandrake.
Red Hat has a tight lip. They don't elaborate. Yet they keep gaining market share.
Their timing here is impeccable.
People bash Red Hat all the time and Red Hat people just don't answer. They don't get into the frey. But Red Hat developers are on all the mailing lists and they're giving us their time and expertise. That's RH encouraged. I'm an old timer and it's taken me a long time to discover what Red Hat is doing. I may use a different Distribution, but they are good for Linux.
I had SuSE installed for about 6 months before I bought the retail package. SuSE has a very nice online package update system, but it still takes a while even with a high speed connection. I finally decided to pay for the retail distribution so I could get documentation and updating packages would be much quicker. (Thought some of the packages in the box might have a newer version online) I would never have paid for a distribution that did not have these two things, especially when you can get the ISOs for free. They are really hurting themselves here. I think very few home users are going to pay simply for support if they are already willing to experiment with a new OS that isn't exactly as simple as windows to deal with.
Just wondered if you'd mind sharing a little info on the Red Hat training course you went on?
I am due to go on the RH253 with Red Hat here in the UK in a week or so - I just wanted to know how you found the course, whether it was worth the money, and if you enjoyed it?
I understand its quite hard going and that they cover a lot of ground in a small amount of time...?
Cheers.
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
Yeah, I'm worried the plan is to effectively prevent people from getting ahold of any Redhat but the enterprise versions that you can only buy with support and a promise to buy support for every copy you use (!).
Is anyone but SuSE real competition in the commercial space? I can't see Debian in corps...
If I wanted to install the most minimal set of the Linux OS (enough to get the system booted and a shell - no other tools) what distro or how would I go about doing this?
I always purchased the boxed set of any distro that I was using for longer than a couple of weekends. I have purchased 3 Red Hat versions, and Slackware and Mandrake. I like having the company boxed sets because they usually included some goodies to go with it.
Broadband is only plentiful in some areas in the US. I currently get over 1.5Mbs. The new house I just purchased only has DSL available and it's 19,500 feet to the nearest CO. How fast do you think that will be?
Oh well, as long as Slackware ships boxed sets, I'll be sticking with them.
It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
I think that you have missed the point where redhat says that the developers of packages will maitain their own rpms for the distro. As a developer that had to create rpms, i see clearly that this move would influense the way developers produce - distribute their programs. If a developer maintains the rpms, he will probably tell people to use them in their install, this would mean that he would tell people to use RedHat to install the software on !
RedHat is simply recognising, like Microsoft, that is has to attract developers for it's platform, so that people would develope for RedHat platform, not for general Linux.
Does this mean the Cable Companies are going to increase their bandwidth speed to make up for this. I mean the whole world revolves around Linux and RMS right?
The first thing I thought of, is "Why doesn't Microsoft distribute electronically?"
For instance if someone buys a retail box of XP today, they get the original release without the most current bug fixes for the OS and IE. It seems it would be more convenient if they could just purchase a completely updated and fixed version of XP online and just download it. I'm sure they won't do it, because there are plenty of reasons not to, many of which have been mentioned by other posts here already, but nonetheless, it would be nice to have that option.
Personally, I would never buy a retail box of Linux because I always the very latest, and I can get that in a downloaded iso(usually).
Red Hat is attempting to push away from the casual user market and focus onto their enterprise line exclusively.
This will kill off the use of Red hat Linux (Non Enterprise) making other distro's like Mandrake and Suse more popular.
I can't believe that a company that is #1 in its industry just decides to call it quits in the retail market.
The reason for this is to focus all support on Enterprise customers, leaving no one who has old Retail boxes or downloaded versions on their own.
Red Hat, big mistake. Support us, the REAL users of your product. Don't turn the other way and throw up your hands like this.
Before I had DSL, it was a mail-order show to get a new distro. Well; big deal. It takes time for boxed sets to reach the stores, it takes time for silver ISOs to be shipped out. Point is, even if all distro makers were to abandon the cardboard box, companies like CheapBytes (only plugging since I've dealt w/ them numerous times in the past) will be happy to step in and take the money being left on the table.
*** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
Unlike Microsoft, who have a major OS release every year or two and release patches and SPs galore in the interim, Linux changes fast. It's been said before, but one of Linux's major problems from a user's POV is the short release cycle - businesses in particular like some stability, and conveniently ignore the fact that MS are putting out a Critical Update every other week. Sad that RH will lose a few impulse buys though.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
I hope RedHat knows what they are doing, because they are going to make themselves invisible to many of the middle management who make buying decisions on software.
And flame me all you want, but what is bad for RedHat in most ways is bad for Linux. They are the lead flagbearer, like it or not.
I am firmly in the camp that Red Hat is doing the right thing.
I remember many years ago during my college days when I first saw the Red Hat boxed version in a Best Buy. I was looking at the games and other software in the windows section, mainly to decide what warez to get later that evening. It used to be so hard browsing for titles on the net, and it was better to make decisions of what I needed or wanted and then go find it.
Looking at the Red Hat box with the "free software" Linux in that Best Buy felt discomforting, and I remember distinctly feeling "oh you MS wannabee's." This whole market of selling boxed software, I remember thinking was MS's creation. They figured out how to sell a box that was 98% empty by volume, for really exhorbitant prices. And now Red Hat was copying them. And they probably had a dream that like the thousands of software titles in the windows section, someday Best Buy would have a section of thousands of Linux software.
But I think Red Hat forgot that MS shrinkwrap box strategy was crafted before the networks and Internet were a force. And more importantly, Bill Gates had wrought a revolution by charging for "software" which hobbyists routinely gave away for free. Linux was a revolution that was giving away for free what had routinely been charged for. There were big differences. And I thought that it was suicide to try to play by the rules that MS had created for the market that it had created.
The world is a few years away from the heyday of the shrinkwrap box. Red Hat should't ape MS and their market strategy. They should choose the one that works for them. And if that requires burn-CD-on-demand then that is what it should be. If it requires networks and downloads that is what is should be. I guess, what I am saying is, that their strategy should be what it should be. Just like a man's got to do what a man's got to do. And what ever all the above means to you, you are right.
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
I've always purchased boxed sets of my favorite distros as a way of helping the revolution. But RH seems to be doing a smart thing. I get a lot better value from joining the redhat network than purchasing things I'll never use (installation manual, pretty box, etc). In fact, I usually just drop the ISOs onto a server so that I can loopback mount them or just copy all the RPMs to a directory. RedHat probably gets more from a subscription than an equivalent boxed set anyway. So almost everybody wins. The people left out may be those that are browsing the aisles at a local computer store and see the (usually outdated) copy of Suse or Mandrake or RH in some bin or clearance rack.
Next release, not permanently.
At the moment, Red Hat doesn't control enough of the market to warrant a full-blown retail version. True, a boxed set at least implants the Red Hat name in the small brain of Joe Simian, but as none of his butt-scratching cohorts are using it, he'll opt for Windows.
So Red Hat withdraws and bides its time, allowing its missionaries to slowly convert the masses, while throwing a small bone to the independent distributors. If the fervor spreads widely enough that the production costs will far outweigh by profits, the boxed sets will reappear in the garish light of Best Buys nationwide.
Every time I buy a boxed set at CompUSA, I see people watching and I know they're wondering about using it. Certainly, they're seeing that people DO buy this "Linux thing" they've been hearing about. At work, people grab the box...or the manuals and comment on how neat it all looks. They claim to be surprised at how much you get in the package, thinking that only MS can do stuff like that. When vendors come in, I purposely leave the materials laying around and I always get a question or two about where our "commitment" is to Linux, usually followed by a resigned sigh as they realize that they'll have to adapt or lose. Red Hat is seriously underestimating the power of that box, and Linux will suffer because of this.
It took me about 3 hours to download all the isos. :-p
Seriously, I have 8 licenses and have never bought a retail copy. Plus I have an MSDN subscription (Universal) and can install each authenticated OS & piece of software 10 times.
I have never had the need to buy a copy of windows in a store.
just bring the boxes back.
Popular demand is an easy problem to handle, it's just not the problem they have now.
Blogging because I can...
Red Hat is becoming rather harsh on anyone that copies their disks. Technically your not allowed to replicate a Red Hat disk unless you go into the code and remove all the trademarks. No logos, no use of the words "Red Hat" in the code. You can't print lables with RED HAT or the shaddowman logo on the disk.
How this is supposed to be legal in face of the GPL is questionable. Any trademark onwer has a right to prevent you from replicating a trademark. For Example: I can't print up Coca-a-cola tee shirts with out getting premission from Coke, even if it would be free advertising for Coke. But at the same time the code, right down to the parts of the code that produces the logos and other trademarks is GPL'd. The trademark itself isn't GPL'd but the code is. So can I repoduce it or not? RedHat says I can't but I'm not sure that they can legally ask this of anyone. And no one that has been asked by RedHat not to do so has had the guts and/or money to fight them in court over it.
Frankly I can see and even agree with RedHat's POV on this. Let say I copy a RH disk and it is botched and sell it to my buddy John. John has trouble installing or using it and therefore he thinks RedHat is junk. It's not RH that produced this it was me. I gave him junk but it is RH that gets the bad reputation. Worse say I put a trojan on his RH disks. As a company the ONLY real asset RedHat has is its good name of which the trademark is a reminder of. I can't blame them for being Nazis about protecting it.
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
This could be good and bad.. ,however, acomplishing this task, so hopefully RedHAt will pick up on all the work they've done..
Good:
This means less workload for RedHat, and would allow for packages to be maintained and updated more often then RedHat currently does, as mentioned in the Article. (You did read the article didn't you?)
Bad:
However, this means that more people are going to be creating packages and better documentation of how to correctly make a package need to be written and the developers need to be "trained" to make good packages with good dependencies. Fedora is
Buy it, install it, love it!!!
It's free software: 1) Make free stuff 2) Get giant IPO 3) Get forced by venture capitalists on board to buy other failing ventures (Ardigita now not only disappeared but not marketed or even developped by RH), 4) .... ?????
5) Profit!!
Even Microsoft has more product offerings at the OS level than RedHat does.
Yup FreeBSD and Debian look like good bets.
Anyone else think this might be a move to cover their ass if SCO wins?
I'm not saying that's the only reason but I bet it factored in somewhere. Those retail boxes aren't cheap and they aren't flying off the shelves but you're going to get in a lot less trouble if you are giving something away than selling it to the public at BestBuy...
It is only a bad move if they stop offering it preinstalled on your computer. If I can't go to Best Buy and get a new E-machine preinstalled with Red Hat complete with a restore disk because I'm too stupid to know how to reinstall it....Oh wait....
Most computer users wouldn't know or even understand what Red Hat is. Those that do will download it or get it in a book or from a fellow geek friend. I never have purchased a copy of any Linux.
Red Hat was wasting money, cardboard, and CDs on very little return.
Will you be able to buy CDs from Best Buy? NO.
Will you be able to get CDs(not ISOs real CDs mailed to you) from RedHat.com? Yes.
Will you still be able to download ISOs from RedHat? Unknown. Possibly not. They may do a SuSE here. (Never understood why Linux dealers offered ISOs.)
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
I've never purchased a single CD from them anyway. I don't feel it's fair that developers put it all together for free and then RH comes in and charges arbitrary money for a CD set. $60 for a $5 book and 50 cent CD? Gimmeabreak.
The entire point of putting a distro of Linux on the shelf is public awareness marketing - It's specifically to reach those who don't have a geek friend to install Linux for them. It's an investment to get those people to get into [RH] Linux, and then down the road those consumers come back when they need servers... Magazines exist solely on this principle - You can't have a readerbase if people don't know you exist. While I acknowledge that it isn't cheap to make a shelf copy available - besides packaging, RH and Mandrake were packaging additional CDs of material and offering a year of telephone support in some cases - the reality to the decision of discontinuing a shelf copy is there is a LOT of market exposure lost. This is RH saying the Linux Desktop doesn't exist.
After WinXP destroyed my computer a couple weeks back I headed over to Waldenbooks and bought "Red Hat Linux 9 for Dummies" which came with RH bundled in free...i think this is a smart move on RH's part, since it will save them money. Quite a few Linux n00bs like myself have gone about getting a copy of Linux much in the same way that I have. I think bundling the OS (with anything, but books in this case) is a great alternative method of distribution.
MartinWorld.Net
Powered by R
The entire point of putting a distro of Linux on the shelf is public awareness marketing - It's specifically to reach those who don't have a geek friend to install Linux for them. It's an investment to get those people to get into [RH] Linux, and then down the road those consumers come back when they need servers...
Magazines exist solely on this principle - You can't have a readerbase if people don't know you exist.
While I acknowledge that it isn't cheap to make a shelf copy available - besides packaging, RH and Mandrake were packaging additional CDs of material and offering a year of telephone support in some cases - the reality to the decision of discontinuing a shelf copy is there is a LOT of market exposure lost.
This is RH saying the Linux Desktop doesn't exist.
They don't have the capital to piss away to maintain market share.
Red Hat had the capital...but instead they just chose to spend $700 million of it on a compiler company and some questionable dot coms.
Setting aside a fraction of that $700 million to continue to provide an easy way for consumers to get their distribution from retail channels would have been the strategically correct thing to do. But then again, that would be acting like a desktop software company (as opposed to the server software company Red Hat has traditionally been).
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
They can probably cost justify keeping places like that stocked with boxed sets.
And don't forget the stickers!
It is also not allowed to sell copies of the downloaded iso as 'Red Hat'. You are now only allowed to sell these cd's if they are named different (not Red Hat) and delete several pictures from the CD.
u idelines/page6.html)
(see http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/g
We were told to stop selling the cd's as well. I thought that was a ploy to sell more boxed versions. I guess I was wrong.
---
Now our LUG's are going to be more important then ever. If more and more of these distribution companies start taking their products off the shelves, we're going to have to market it for them. That is, if we want more users. And of course we do, we want world domination! Buahahaha!
But seriously, this is probably a good thing. Red Hat is no longer losing money, so they'll be able to hang around longer. The boxed sets in stores are usually outdated anyway. Seeing copies of Red Hat in dumpsters reflects poorly on the software.
So now, it's our turn to take charge. Market the software for them. Tell people about linux and what it can do for them. If they're interested, recommend a distribution to start out with, and help them install it. Show them how to use. Then be prepared to move them up to something a little more advanced. Most people I know that use linux started out with Red Hat and then moved to Debian or Gentoo or Slackware after about a month. Or maybe they want to use a *BSD. The point is, help people help free software!
A company called Protocall will be having kiosks in CompUSA where they produce software-on-demand from their system. So when you choose the program, the artwork is printed out, inserted into a DVD case, and the CD gets burned and five minutes later you walk out with the software you purchased. I wouldn't be suprised if we hear more and more companies making partnerships like this to avoid the gargantuan fees levied by Ingram-Micro, who have been throwing their weight around the retail channels. On-demand production of software is definitely an idea whose time has come.
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
Shouldn't their still be time to get Enterprise out to those who need it? Not all of us like to drag around ~10 Enterprise CD-R's :P.
Well considering I buy everything ONLINE it would make sense that instead of having things on shelves
that Redhat (the Manufacturer) sell copies directly and ship it to you via fed-ex.
This is the "Modern" business model.
i.e. company x builds product on demand and ships it next day directly to customer y who ordered it online. Removing the middleman saves company x
and customer y a great deal of money in overhead
and unused product and middlemen.
What they really need to do is market the rpm
system better. Explain why it roxors.
If RedHat isn't going to distribute their wares through a retail channel, then someone else will. It may not be from Red Hat, but anyone can distribute a copy of Red Hat Linux.
It will happen.
Not really, the issue is removal of MS' ability to control and co-opt standards. Getting Joe Simian is just a mean to that objective, maybe the only way to ever achive that end.
If other avenues opens. Example Federal edict to use Open Standards most Linux users couldn't give a rat's ass about Joe.
Caveat is delta cost to Government of MS Tax as it is a cost to everyone.
Help fight continental drift.
That there is no market for anything other that windows for the desktop. Red Hat is just now seeing that. Micro$oft or $co is a big threat to linux, but, they are jut the straw that breaks the camels back. Linux does not have much in the way of software support.
How can you get the average Joe Schmoe to use Linux for graphic editing if there are no graphic editors except for Gimp which is confusing at best, when Windows has Paint Shop Pro, Photoshop, Fractal Design Paint, and Neopaint?
If this one area of software is an example for the rest of the software support for linux, then that's one incentive to stay with Windows. That is why OEMs are not embracing linux.
This is a very good thing. Red Hat had been getting entirely too "tuned" for my tastes. This can only help them be more flexible and they will put their resources to work fixing things that need help, not messing with other people's code. Their hardware compatibility is awsome but for it to come at the expense of basic stuff like "adduser"? They can take advice like that now. They also had good Solaris match up. Quicker, cheaper releases will help them compete for share against the ultimate in free, Debian. Red Hat has to maintian both code quality and ease of implemntation to maintain that share. A boxed set provided neither of those things. Oh yeah, they might also put those resources on making migration packages for their up2date users instead of End of Lifing them. Who better for that than package maintainers? Their cheap CD's that migrated from one version to another were a way better distribution method than boxed sets ever were. They are getting back to the things that set them appart and that they do well. I'm encouraged by this change in direction and expect them to grow.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
figure it out, linux is dead
Really.
Later this year, Red Hat will announce their "Personal Desktop" distro, the one they've mentioned before. RH9 already has code in place for a snazzy graphical bootup; equally, you think they put all that effort into Bluecurve if the desktop market was dead?
RH are preparing themselves for pre-installations.
Just wait and see...
Just so you know, at least *one* person got this fantastic reference. But for some reason, I haven't had any mode points for a year or so. replace "tentacled" with "insect". One of the funniest lines in context in history.
Not a large percentage of what is on the CDs, but more programmers of Free Software are paid by RedHat than any other distribution.
I get all my Red Hat discs from Linux Central. Costs me £9 for all three RH 8 discs, I get them delivered really quickly (quicker than estimated-even from US to UK) and they haven't failed once.
Boxed never crossed my mind. There's not much I'd want. I don't need a printed manual, for I can pick up documentation from Red Hat's site FOR FREE, NO HASSLE and ON DEMAND. I can get all my plugins absolutely fine, I don't need the non-free disc. Hell, I haven't taken out my discs since I installed this box, cos I use apt-get for RPM. Paying a lot more so I can have a nice shiny box which I'll never open isn't high on my list of priorities.
Also, Student Desktops are selling RH8.0 preloaded PCs for £300, with monitor. Who needs boxed when you can get kickass cheap preloaded systems like this? (Thus, I no longer need to imagine my Beowulf Cluster! It shall be mine, all mine...bwahahahahaha!)
RH will always be my distro of choice, since I like the way it works and I can tweak it endlessly. Right now, I'm running on RH8 with a source-built KDE 3.1.2 and I'm compiling MySQL. And I haven't seen a problem anywhere. Beat that.
If you're happy and you know it read my blog
How do these people get Debian, I wonder. No, I know that you can get cheap CDs much easier than you can get a silly box at the store. It's a much better means to distribute than boxed sets. Oh yeah, it also supports the local installers better because you don't fool Joe Sixpacks into thinking that he can walk out of a store with a box and get it onto his computer at home without much trouble. Well, it may be less trouble than a Windoze install, but poor Joe Sixpacks will have a lot more reading to do than what's contained in that little Red Box before he gets it. I've bought one little red box once and I was not near as happy with that arangement as I was with the CheapHytes solution. Now that I've discovered apt-get, Red Hat has a long way to go. This is a change in the right direction. Killing end of life nonsense is the next change they need to make, then Viola! their superior hardware compatibility and Solaris work alikeness and other strengths will be worth the effort of learning the Red Hat way.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Can you say "The SCO Effect"?
Debian, 5% hmmm,
maybe there is somet truth to all this supreme mathematic stuff
They were always using the retail version as a beta-test for the enterprise version. Lots of bug reports came in from a wide variety of sources, and they could fix them and therefore provide a more stable enterprise edition. Without the retail set, I expect their enterprise edition to drop in quality.
Yes, they run you as root by default and they've got other problems, but Lindows actually seems to want to be on Compusa shelves, and is more likely to be useful to Compusa's customers.
Redhat was just there because they thought they had to be, not because it was making them any money. Linux won't die from the Compusa shelves if Mr. Robertson moves fast.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
And why can't you find them at places like Cheapbytes or any other CD vendor? Oh yeah, I forgot, they are a bunch of control freaks marketing closed source software. They don't get it and will never be as easy to get, deploy or use. My bad, what was I thinking?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Windows is a hype: How much $$$ does Gates spend on marketing/advertising every year? Hundreds of millions of dollars. That and the OS comes with most computers already installed!!! By saying that "this will hurt Linux", you are underestimating the power of Linux. Linux and more specifically the Redhat distro, is more famous than people think. Even people who don't use Linux know about Redhat. And that is not because of retail, it's thanks to the Redhat administrators. These guys (including myself) would never use MS products, simply because of the lousy, buggy and swiss cheese security (forgive my childish comments, but there are no other words to describe it). MS has simply made is easy to upgrade the bugs, and after of course having to reboot and pray... Forget the open source issue, forget the fact that's it is free to download, there is no comparison between Windows and Linux. I'd buy Linux for $2000 over free Windows given to me with a 10,000 user license (if there such a thing... Linux doesn't have a license limit.) I'd buy it simply because it works and rarely if EVER, fails. I've administered Windows, HP-UX and Linux for years, I must say that Linux truly works works and works and keeps on ticking full power, plain and simple. Linux is not here to dominate or to compete, nor are we here to hype it. It is simply better. People will come to realize it sooner or later. And finally, Redhat's decision will never hurt Linux, even if Redhat holds a major share in the Linux market. Another distribution will pickup where Redhat has left off, my guess? A new distribution baed on Redhat.
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
Having a 'box' available in the stores does a lot for PR, even at a loss in pure dollars..
The 'box' IS important for marekting and the general publics 'warm and fuzzies'
Management shops at best buy for their home stuff, and the question will arise when they are no longer seen on the shelves.. ' whats wrong with linux, it was here last week'.
Yes i know Redhat ISNT linux, but the public often thinks this... ie PR...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Without the retail set, I expect their enterprise edition to drop in quality.
Well, there's always the old fashioned way of hiring testers, buying a range of supported hardware, and running various suites of tests within the company. This is more of an economic burden on Redhat, but it's a necessity if they're going to abandon the previous system for testing releases. Someone in their management may feel they can save enough money by dropping the retail version that internal testing would be cheaper for them.
Or alternatively, they may have too many suits on the payroll who haven't yet considered this. The resultant product quality will show which is the case.
How about use that money they save on some good advertising i.e. TV ads, newspaper and etc?
No, but they were the only American one, that came in a red and white box. No matter how petty that may seem to some, it is the sole decision maker in many US households.
So, Red Hat want to change its marketing and development strategy? Faster pace for more up to date software? .They should embrace apt or at least provide a similar distribution system (client and server as open-source and free).
If Red Hat wants its distribution to be embraced for the desktop, they must provide a way for people to discover and install apps easily. apt with synaptic is the answer. If there were repositories of 3rd party software available, people could easily install software.
Yes, apt already exist for Red Hat, but the movement is sorta underground since its not the official distribution channel. Only a few sites like freshrpms supports apt. up2date is only wired to their repository, limiting seriously the choice of apps available for download.
Currently, Grandma must download an rpm, start a term and do rpm -Uhv to install it. Not fantastic (ok, there might be some 3rd party gui to do this, but none is standard). If there is one thing I am envious from the Debian distribution, it is its huge number of repositories available and that apt is the standard way of installing software.
Remember the year 2000? They promised us flying cars. They delivered the PT Cruiser...
If I go into Staples or PC World in my town, I'll see boxes of Linux distros that are two or even three releases behind the current one (this applies to Red Hat, Mandrake or, before SCO pulled the plug, Caldera).
Guess what that means. Nobody's buying it. Could it be because it has LINUX on the box?
Technically no one can sell copies of RedHat. They are Nazi's about their trademarks so they will not allow a copy of a disk to say Red Hat or allow the code to contain the words Red Hat or the shadowman logos. Cheapbytes sells "Pink Tie" which is Red Hat after you remove all the logos and other trademarked items in the code. So is it really Red Hat?
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
There is a new Red Hat beta coming out. Most likely on Monday morning. The mirrors already have it. As usual it is locked on all of them, or at least it should be.
Severn
... is not exactly trivial. I've gotten into building rpms for my current job over the last four months. Built maybe 45 packages now. It's not terribly hard, per se, but it's not just "./configure ; make ; make install".
/var/www/ instead of /home/httpd/ and /var/ftp and all that other stuff I've finally grown accustomed to. It makes great sense under the FHS perspective, that binaries and libs would live under /usr and data would live under /var, so I adapted readily.
./configure itself under /usr/local/fooboo, who exactly will be responsible to provide the .spec files and layout rules for fooboo.i386.rpm? I would presume that if Red Hat releases fooboo with version 10 or X or Chambrain or whatever, some developer at Red Hat will do the initial config and produce a fooboo.src.rpm, maybe. We all hope.
Red Hat Linux has made some avant garde strides in Filesystem Heirarchy Standard (FHS, www.pathname.com/fhs) compatibility over the last few versions. They were the first major distro that I was aware of using
When some developer on project fooboo builds his package to
Let's not even get into dependencies. I've had to add a new module for PHP recently, which involved no end of conniptions after the modern php.spec file REQUIRED apache2 and a host of libs that aren't distributed in the version on my servers. The lack of backward compatibility, or even tolerance for minor version numbers with different release numbers, is frightening. Were I in a cube in Raleigh with my thumb on the whole web server project, I could coordinate that module's inclusion. Were I a developer working on PHP, I'd shoot myself now and avoid the rush.
-j
Most people I know who use Linux *did* start with CD's and many of them were CD's that I burned. So the real issue is that if someone wants to redistribute the RedHat disks, they can.
The only thing that bothers me is that I think that RedHat needs to court small hobbyists as well as large enterprises. This is how they keep thir name recognition. I am wondering how long before they abandon their standard distributions all together. That IMO would be a very bad thing... I am NOT going to buy RedHat Enterprise Desktop just in order to study to pass the RHCE....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
First, the Linux Desktop doesn't exist. It's a myth.
Second, all that advertisement comes at a price.
Third, anyone that is going to be coming to Red Hat for a server solution isn't going to base their decision on the fact that they saw a box copy at Wal-Mart.
Fourth, there are thousands of magazines that do quite well without having a single newsstand presence.
Fifth, the very fact that a year of telephone support is supposed to be a big buying plus is insane. The average consumer isn't going to jump and buy based on that. That would most likely scare them off. You might as well put a warning on the box saying, "This software is so incredibly difficult for the average person to use that we include a year of free tech support after which you'll still probably need help and buy three of four books on Linux at exorbitant prices if you're still using the software after a month."
-
"Why doesn't Microsoft distribute electronically?"
Because, they're the biggest software company in the world, and they have better ways that make them a whole lot more money.
Like have their name on TV all the time, and lots of boxes of their software on display at walmart. It's called 'availability'. Which leads to 'impulse buying'. 90% of Americans go to WalMart and splurge. But apparently Red Hat just can't pull it off in that market. Must not be much demand.
I was going to let your shot at my supposed age and naivete go by... but what the hell, I've got nothing better to do.
If I am receiving a service from someone, then I have absolutely NO PROBLEM throwing them a few bones. Did they provide a few iso's to me? Yes? Then I'm willing to provide some cash in return for their bandwidth and time. If you can't, then fine... the redhat police aren't going to come knocking at your door... but if you have the money, and just refuse to part with it, while at the same time using someone else's work, well... there's a name for that.
If you have too many bills and no job, then I'd suggest you adapt... like taking some of the money you are using to host "the nation's largest collection of free porn" and instead use it to go back to school, or buy a cheeseburger. If you've got no job/money, then you're not in a position to give... totally understandable.
I am NOT referring to people who have no money. If you're broke, and living hand-to-mouth, then you've got more important things to worry about than redhat distros. The people I'm talking about are those who only want to take, and never give anything back, even when they're in a position to do so.
Yes, I'm talking about community. I'm a believer in volunteerism, and I try to practice what I preach. It doesn't make me a better person... just a more satisfied one.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
You might as well put a warning on the box saying, "This software is so incredibly difficult for the average person to use that we include a year of free tech support after which you'll still probably need help and buy three of four books on Linux at exorbitant prices if you're still using the software after a month."
LMAO. No wonder it's not selling very well!
The Consumer has had, it's having and will have plenty of Linux (including Red Hat Linux, of course) with all the media attention. Yes, local and national media are printing, broadcasting... more and more stuff about Linux this days. (stop reading Slashdot! buy a local newspaper! turn on TV!)
;)
Even my in-laws call me, snail-mail me or email me (now it's pretty often, so it's getting annoying!) when they see something about Linux in the news/local newspapers etc etc. "Joe Localbusinessman switched to Leenux and saved millions" "Local geeks help networking local highschool with Lunix" "I make coffee with Leh-nucks and it tastes beter".
Yes, Linux is getting there. The average Joe Sixpack is reading about Linux in his local newspaper, local TV and seeing the local politicians talk about Loonix, as a measure to save money to the State. "Mmmm, if Lunix can save money to the State, what about my home? "
And Joe Sixpack hasn't ever never really bought any boxed Windows. Joe will get his Linux where he got his Windows: at the local computer shoppe (with the wizzy guy), buying a HP-Compaq preloaded with Linux, through the kids (bittorrent, kazaa... maybe even ftp!) or some guy from work will hand him a copuple of CDs with "Red Hat Linux 10".
This is going to happen in the near future. Mark my words. And, if it doesn't happen, you can get your money back.
Peace.
I haven't been to any other countries , so I have no idea if RH does this elsewhere or not. In Australia , from the newsagent you can buy RH as a 5 CD set , with a small A5 size installation guide, for about $35AUS (I think). When APC magazine sold their linux "pocketbooks" in newsagencies a few years ago, they were immensely popular, easily selling thousands in a few days, complete with a linux distro. After the third release of the APC pocketbook , RH must have decided to get some of the action, and released their own pocketbook.
:-)
Hopefully RH in australia keeps this up , its really nice to be able to go to almost your nearest store, and pick up linux from anywhere.
And you still get your RH stickers too
The Consumer has had, it's having and will have plenty of Linux (including Red Hat Linux, of course) with all the media attention. Yes, local and national media are printing, broadcasting... more and more stuff about Linux this days...
Yes, unfortunately however none of it has been particularly good.
I have a good idea for ALL linux distributors that gets around the problem of the expense of boxed dostros and and the lack of and/or still slow speeds of Broadband in rural communities like mine. This would be mass FREE DISTRIBUTUION OF LINUX ON CD ROM along with a cd retail catalog for manuals, paid support, proprietary software trial disks and other items that currently come with boxed distros. This is the way that national ISPs like AOL and Earthlink made it to the top over local ones and therefore it could also be the way that Linux takes the desktop.
is for me to put on my Shadowman! costume and stand right next to 'Operating Systems' at COMPUSA!
That's got to be the only way to maintain RH's exposure/visibility!
(Does Shadowman wear a red cape to go with the Hat?)
>> The entire point of putting a distro of Linux on the shelf is public awareness marketing... down the road those consumers come back when they need servers... .
I disagree. The purpose of marketing shrinkwrapped Linux is to make money, not to act as a loss leader for server sales. How many people wandering around the aisles of CompUSA are going to pick up the phone and start ording Red Hat servers?
RedHat seems to be ready to pull out of the shrinkwrap business and to stop paying RedHat developers to work on Linux apps. This is exactly what they would do if marketing shrink-wrapped Linux is a money-losing proposition.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
The thing people seem to forget about Linux is that until huge companies force feed it to users (like Dell) the average user isn't going to touch it.
Not only did I build my own box, but I installed Linux on it. My mom's gonna be running it soon because I'm putting it on a machine for her. She doesn't care because that's what came with the computer she'll be getting.
If someone isn't tech savvy enough to download their own CD and install it, then they aren't tech savvy enough to install ANY OS and they're simply going to use what came with the computer.
This isn't Red Hat saying that the Linux desktop doesn't exist, it's Red Hat saying, "Okay, corporations don't buy off the shelf and have informed IT (arguably) making the decisions anyway and they'll buy in bulk and pay for support contracts. So they're not gonna buy it. Oh yeah, and nerds don't buy it because they're cheap bastards and have broadband and CD burners and don't even use our distro anyway. Let's see here... John Q. Whatever doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about computers and uses what's on his Compaq. That leaves... like... five people in the world. Seeing as our sales are blowing in that sector... let's just stop this nonsense."
I actually bought Red Hat off the shelf years ago but that's only because the $30 or whatever beat the hell out of trying to download something that massive on a dial up (not to mention tying up my phone line stops "da ladies" from calling) and because it came with a book... a book that sucked ass and I ended up dropping another $30 on O'Reilly's "Running Linux."
The documentation and broadband availablity is a whole different world now though and Red Hat is making a wise decision. I think so anyway...
Once again, the point is missed: no computer neophyte installs *any* operating system. They bought a machine that had Windows pre-installed on it. They upgrade through Windows Update (if they can). They NEVER install an OS of any stripe.
To even begin considering installing an operating system takes them out of the league of the complete newbie and puts them in the realm of the half-clued. Even people with half a clue can click "OK" or make a choice from a menu of options.
I've run Red Hat 7.1 and now 9.0 on my box at home. In both cases the install could have been done by just about anyone with that mythic half-a-clue. The installation CDs are bootable. The installation programs take care of disk partitioning and formatting as required. Kudzu finds the different hardware pieces. The only thing that didn't work right out of the box was the Nvidia ethernet system on my new Abit NF7-M motherboard. Other than that, everything worked "out of the box" for both that board and the Asus P5A (and the video/audio/ethernet cards used with it) it replaced.
My wife runs Win98 on her machine. I've installed Windows on it and on the many machines I worked on at the school she taught in. Installing Windows is no more and no less difficult than any modern Red Hat distribution. Except the built-in VIA hardware on her Biostar M7-VKQ wasn't recognized and I had to manually install driver for them *all*. I suppose that makes Win98 *more* difficult than Red Hat!
The problem with boxed distros is that they get stale almost immediately. That costs RH and the others bucks (as they eat the unsold copies with each new release).
Unfortunately, I think most potential mom-and-pop Linux converts will expect to be able to run down to Best Buy and find Linux-in-a-box. I just can't imagine 90% of the people I know downloading an ISO and burning an install disk.
Perhaps the distros could box disks that make a network install easy?
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
Red Hat Linux 9.0.93 Release Notes
/root/anaconda-screenshots/
Copyright © 2003 Red Hat, Inc.
Red Hat Linux Project Introduction
With this release, the Red Hat Linux product is becoming the Red Hat Linux Project -- an openly-developed project designed by Red Hat, open for general participation, led by a meritocracy, following a set of project objectives. For more information, see the Red Hat Linux Project website:
http://rhl.redhat.com/
In addition to the website, the following mailing lists are available:
*
rhl-list@redhat.com -- For users of Red Hat Linux releases
*
rhl-beta-list@redhat.com -- For testers of Red Hat Linux beta releases
*
rhl-devel-list@redhat.com -- For developers, developers, developers
*
rhl-docs-list@redhat.com -- For participants of the docs project
To subscribe to any of these lists, send an email with the word "subscribe" in the subject to -request (where is one of the above list names.)
The Red Hat Linux project also includes an IRC (Internet Relay Chat) channel. IRC is a real-time, text-based form of communication. With it, you can have conversations with multiple people in an open channel or chat with someone privately one-on-one.
To talk with other Red Hat Linux project participants via IRC, access freenode IRC network. Initially, you can use irc.freenode.net as the IRC server, although you may decide to select a server that is geographically closer to you. See the freenode website (http://www.freenode.net/) for more information. Red Hat Linux project participants frequent the #rhl-devel channel, as well as individual project channels for large projects. Individual project channels, IRC server, and channel information can be found on the project pages.
Hardware Requirements
The following information represents the minimum hardware requirements necessary to successfully install Red Hat Linux 9.0.93:
CPU:
NOTE: The following CPU specifications are stated in terms of Intel processors. Other processors (notably, offerings from AMD, Cyrix, and VIA) that are compatible with and equivalent to the following Intel processors may also be used with Red Hat Linux.
- Minimum: Pentium-class
- Recommended for text-mode: 200 MHz Pentium-class or better
- Recommended for graphical: 400 MHz Pentium II or better
Hard Disk Space (NOTE: Additional space will be required for user data):
- Custom Installation (minimum): 475MB
- Server (minimum): 850MB
- Personal Desktop: 1.7GB
- Workstation: 2.1GB
- Custom Installation (everything): 5.0GB
Memory:
- Minimum for text-mode: 64MB
- Minimum for graphical: 128MB
- Recommended for graphical: 192MB
Note that the compatibility/availability of other hardware components (such as video and network cards) may be required for specific installation modes and/or post-installation usage.
Installation-Related Notes
This section outlines those issues that are related to Anaconda (the Red Hat Linux installation program) and installing Red Hat Linux 9.0.93 in general.
*
The Red Hat Linux installation program has the ability to test the integrity of the installation media. It works with the CD, DVD, hard drive ISO, and NFS ISO installation methods. Red Hat recommends that you test all installation media before starting the installation process, and before reporting any installation-related bugs (many of the bugs reported are actually due to improperly-burned CDs). To use this test, type linux mediacheck at the boot: prompt.
*
During a graphical installation, you can press SHIFT-Print Screen and a screenshot of the current installation screen will be taken. These are stored in the following directory:
The screenshots can be accessed once the newly-installed system is rebooted.
*
This is the ideal point for Mandrake to seriously attack the consumer market. With Red Hat out of the picture, I think Mandrake can easily fill the gap. If Mandrake doesn't rebound in the near future, they are gone IMO...
KoalaBear33
......The worst thing in my life happened when the stock market started mattering more than the economy
This isn't Red Hat saying that the Linux desktop doesn't exist...
Actually, that's exactly what it's saying.
I actually bought Red Hat off the shelf years ago but that's only because the $30 or whatever beat the hell out of trying to download something that massive on a dial up...not to mention a book that sucked ass and I ended up dropping another $30 on O'Reilly's "Running Linux."
Many others won't even have that option now. Going online 100% will hurt their overall $$$ sales, not only because it is effectively sacrificing the retail market, but also simply because so much piracy exists in their future (online) environment.
Red Hat to change development model, abandon shrinkwrap
The company's next major release, codenamed "Cambridge," will not be provided in boxed, retail form, according to company communications with employees and developers, which have been made available to Linux and Main.
Additionally, Red Hat plans extensive changes in its development and distribution model. The changes will begin with development lists being made public, and will be followed by return of package maintanence to the developers themselves. Currently, packages are "handed over" to Red Hat developers, who then tune them for inclusion in a particular version. Under the new system, developers will maintain control of the packages.
The company hopes that the changes help to overcome the long lead time needed to produce boxed sets. With a six-month release cycle, and with the rapid pace of Linux development, many packages shipped on CD are obsolete before they ever reach retail shelves.
cpeterso
If you would like to receive the latest version of whatever distrobution you want, visit this location linux central
. Certainly, it doesn't have some of the "nifty" inclusions such as trial software from commercial vendors, or other inclusions available only to the boxed set. However, it is definitely a cheap way to get your hands on a distrobution if you don't want to download and burn your own CDs. I would imagine that the Red Hat network will be switching to a "service" based business model. You by maintenance, support, regular upgrades, optimizations, and additional software products designed to work with Red Hat or Linux. They won't need to rely on the "retail" business model. I think that Progeny has already embraced this mode of business. I wonder how profitable they are? I think Red Hat will have a leg up seeing that they are the leading US distribution in the business world.To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
I disagree that their message is against the desktop at all. I think it's good business sense. If they're not even selling what they're producing I'd wager they're actually losing money on the shelftop sales. I mean, if it was making them money what would be the point of pulling it?
But hey, I don't even use Red Hat and haven't found their package terribly satisfying for what I do in any of the iterations I've used so I'm fairly indifferent to what Red Hat's up to (although not entirely or I wouldn't be posting).
And there are alternatives. SuSE is still there (another one I bought off the shelves) and I liked it a lot better. Mandrake too (another one I liked better, although only marginally).
Is there any statistical data on sales somewhere? I'm curious what distro is doing the best at like Fry's/CompUSA/Office Max/etc.
At this point it's boiling down to personal opinion though, so it's best to take what I say with a grain of salt (and I know everyone will).
The idea, I understand, is that SCO won't be able to sue them cause they don't make money out of boxed sets anyway. Also, giving the managementof packages to the developers will save their ass from IP infringements.
I'd wager they're actually losing money on the shelftop sales. I mean, if it was making them money what would be the point of pulling it?
Exactly why the Linux desktop is dead. If Red Hat is withdrawing, it must be awfully tough going, for ANYONE.
try CheapBytes.
Who am I to blow against the wind? -- Paul Simon
Nearly every,though no all, version of RH I've run has been a boxed set. I buy it retail because I want to contribute to the idea that Linux is a great OS. Taking it off the shelves means that M$ has, in maybe a small way, won a battle. No, it may not be selling the best, but I doubt Windows XP sells off the shelf very well either, since most get it with their new PC. Okay, so it may help a bottom line on an expense sheet somewhere, but there are intangeables to consider. Not retailing your OS says to the world "we're not a serious OS contender." Frankly, in my mind, this sets at least RH back a few years in the publics perception. >
First, the Linux Desktop doesn't exist. It's a myth.
Err, it ain't no myth, time to stop living in the 90's
I think the rest of your points are valid, the fifth being perhaps worded a bit harshly.
if you can't buy it at the stores now - will the only way to purchase be to download and burn? ouch!!!!! what about all those without burners? what about all those without broadband? or will you be able to purchase the CDs on line? or will you have to switch to SuSE or Mandrake?
nature loves variety::society hates it get your variety at http://www.monkeypantz.net
Parnet post:
/ gu idelines/page8.html
u idelines/page6.html
What will will do for businesses putting redhat on the desktop in regard to the RedHat trademark? Are they going to have to pay for it online, or will they drop all the trademark stuff for RedHat Linux?
Now I wasn't sure exactly what his point was unless he was refering to selling copies of Red Hat to clients of giving copies of Red Hat to clients as part of the service of mantaining it. Why would two friends copying software have anything to worry about Trademarks? Someone SELLING software does have to worry about trademarks.
Part of my comments:
Let say I copy a RH disk and it is botched and sell it to my buddy John.
I said SELL the disk. I was only refering to SELLing the disk. Note RED HAT considers professionals who install copies of Red Hat to clients as SELLING copies of their disks. If they hear that you do that they will ask you not to. I know I was.
http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark
Except for you friend to friend coping it forbids copies of Red Hat. If you market Red Hat in any way you can't use copies that you yourself produce. (Unless you remove the RedHat logos from the code) See: http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/g
Ask www.linuxiso.org about Red Hat's trademark policy. You get a earful.
http://www.linuxiso.org/news.php#87
I'm not trying to make Red Hat look bad. This is what THEY ask of people that copy their disks. Try to find a copy of Red Hat at cheapbytes? You will not. You get Pink Tie. It is RH9 without the logos or the words Red Hat on the disk or in the code.
MOD PARENT TROLL!
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
That's the problem of the GPL, it forces everyone to live off support but there is no incentive in the distribution. Move to BSDL.
I still believe that all the distros should work together to take over MS. They could excel so much faster if they worked together...
Regards, Jake Johnson http://www.plutoid.com
Can order CDs from cheapbytes most of the distros they have are less then $6.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Red Hat could box up a single disk. This disk would install a Red Hat base system, which would then be able to use the Internet to download the rest using Up2Date.
Note that this one disk, if done correctly, could be distributed pretty much forever. Currently, when a new version of Red Hat comes out, a bunch of the old version goes into the trash. The one-disk installer wouldn't have that problem.
Note also that Debian works this way now too. The PGI installer is one CD (and that one only about 1/6th full) but it installs the latest and greatest versions of all your packages, from the Internet. There is even a bootable Linux recovery disk that can, as one of its features, install a Debian base system that you could bootstrap into a full Debian system.
Anyway, a single installer CD in a shrinkwrap box is all they need, as long as there is info on where to order a set of the latest packages on CDs for a CD install. You should also be able to buy those CD sets from CheapBytes or similar distributors.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Useful informations. Not too many XP Home users here, but nonetheless useful.
Could we please try to expunge this inane "Linux desktop is dead" meme? First off, it isn't -- or else my desktop is an illusion -- and secondly, you could only believe this if you hadn't been watching the evolution of Linux over the past ten years. I've been using it since the SLS days, and I can unequivocally state that the Linux desktop has been improving (at an increasing rate) ever since. Repeating alarmist but catchy phrases about the demise of the Linux desktop reveals the speaker's ignorance to those who use said desktops, without adding anything of consequence to the discussion.
About the only thing "dead" regarding the Linux desktop is twm...and it's only sleeping!
-Carter
(And yes, some of us really did like twm....)
majority of of Windows are pre-installed, you
should expect a lot more Linux (retail) sales
in order to arrive to 5-10% market share. A
lot more.
Umm, no, it's not at all Red Hat saying "The Linux desktop doesn't exist." They know perfectly well that it does, and that they probably have the largest single share of it.
What Red Hat is saying is that Linux does not get onto the desktop via the boxed set, at least not in sufficient quantities for them to make money at it.
Look around at the people you know who are running Linux. How many of them installed from a boxed set that they purchased, or even from someone else's purchased boxed set? Probably very few. Most people who need CDs either buy them for a small charge from someone who will burn them a set cheaply, or from outfits like Cheap Bytes, who sell low-cost CDs for various distros.
P.S.
" but also simply because so much piracy exists in their future (online) environment."
Huh? Piracy of GPLed software? That would be taking the code and using it in a proprietary product, but you seem to be saying (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that people would be illegally copying Red Hat. It is, of course, completely legal to copy Red Hat. That's how I've gotten every version of RH I've ever had except one. Heck, before TurboLinux had an actual distro called that, the first TurboLinux product I ever saw was called "The TurboLinux Edition of Red Hat Linux 4.2." It was a 100% copy of Red Hat, nothing at all changed. Everything in the installer and elsewhere said "Red Hat." There was no reference at all to TurboLinux anywhere except the label on the CD. And it was 100% legal.
I think RH was probably faced with making one of two choices: pull the boxed sets, which must be losing money for them, or follow SuSE's approach and not provide ISOs of Red Hat. Assuming that SuSE hasn't changed anything recently, you can FTP down all of their individual files, but if you want ISOs, you have to make them yourself.
They probably figured that not having ISOs for download would lose them far more market share, and save them far less money, than dropping the boxed sets would.
Boxed sets are the only/best way to get commercial software.. maybe not so important in the U.S. but in Japan for example where RH has the market share (though ibm only supports RH7 !!) you have to get the boxed set to get the front end processor (A.I. input tool) critical to Japanese input and good fonts. Currently I am using RH9 from the ftp site and I have to tell you it drives me nuts with its utterly brain dead kanji conversion (from roman letter phonetic spelling to the correct kanji combination).
I did tell a client to buy two year-long liscenses to RH network though.
If RH had an online store where I could buy all the commercial linux software I want as rpms for RH9 I would totally be there. Especially if it didn't have to be paid by credit card!!
Until now there's always been a strong separation between developer and packager. Most distributions (particularly Debian) have thought of this as a Good Thing, though I don't remember the reasons right now.
I think Red Hat's move could work if the same strategy is shared by several distributions (and perhaps even by AIX or Solaris, if they adopt RPM) so that developers can maintain a non-distro-specific package. But many developers might not be happy about producing an RPM spec file just for Red Hat, or even just for Linux. Not everyone wants to pull in the same direction - the Apache developers try to make a web server, not to make a Linux web server or a part of GNU.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
kill them. Even I, have held-off on buying version 9.1 (it would be the 5th boxed set I get from them if I buy it) because I am still REALLY mad at France for their behavior during GW2 (Gulf War 2.)
I will probably buy it eventually (or maybe switch to SuSe), but I doubt that most of my fellow Americans will begin buying ANYTHING from France for a long time.
GNOME file selection dialog
They apparently got the message
Linux Desktop is a myth, eh? That's some lame flamebait... #2 - ALL advertisement comes at a price. You have to spend money to make money... 3 - It's obvious the concept of marketing is lost on you, besides that Wal-Mart wasn't selling Linux retail boxes. 4th - If there's so many, go ahead and list them. I'll save you the time - you can't. 5th - I know for a fact of speaking to 5+ people myself who were impressed at the value of the provided telephone support. Just because you don't see value in it, doesn't mean it doesn't entice others. You're not an intellectual terrorist - you're a moron with points weaker then your morning coffee.
Umm, no, it's not at all Red Hat saying "The Linux desktop doesn't exist." They know perfectly well that it does, and that they probably have the largest single share of it.
What Red Hat is saying is that Linux does not get onto the desktop via the boxed set, at least not in sufficient quantities for them to make money at it.Your term of Linux desktop is different from the market the product is trying to sell in. That is the key here...
In order for a product to sell, it must be "branded". That means when you walk into the local Sears/Wal-Mart/etc and say aloud "RedHat", everyone knows exactly what you are talking about. Problem is, when you do ask a person about a computer, the two key words in the response will be "Pentium" and "Windows".
Part of the issue for why Linux does not sell in a consumer market is because when a user is confronted with the desktop, they can't function easily in it for numerous reasons - they can't find Word, they can't figure out how to install software, etc. All these details have left Linux as a whole, branded - "it's difficult to install, hard to work with, etc".
Now the largest Linux distro has pulled the plug on their boxed set meant for the consumer market - the Linux Desktop market. They gave it a decent shot - at least 3 years - though I can't say I remember any ads in the paper or flyers to actually advertise the product. That being said, it was destined to fail...
That's the point - why market something that is essentially a beta (and that's being nice) compared to what is found on a Windows desktop? After all, Windows already owns the desktop market - to produce a competeing product whose features aren't comparable beyond that its' free is tatamount to capitalist suicide.
If anything, it's a disservice to have attempted to sell such a product because it's now even more branded then before.
Could we please try to expunge this inane "Linux desktop is dead" meme? First off, it isn't -- or else my desktop is an illusion -- and secondly, you could only believe this if you hadn't been watching the evolution of Linux over the past ten years.
No, it should not be expunged.
What you aren't grasping here is:
1- The market an off the shelf copy of Linux reaches on the local BestBuy/etc. It's not the people who would seek Linux out...
2- That market's interpretation of what a desktop is. Most of them have seen Windows95 or 98, and want to see comparable value.
To those of us who use Linux, a desktop exists because we are willing to function in it and it does what we want it to as a whole. The actual "Desktop" market doesn't accept this, and it would be considered Beta stage after releases the likes of RH 8 and 9...
When the largest Linux distro decides to no longer provide retail boxes, it's pretty significant to the consumer/Desktop market...
Repeating alarmist but catchy phrases about the demise of the Linux desktop reveals the speaker's ignorance to those who use said desktops, without adding anything of consequence to the discussion.
I was simply responding to the phrase as presented by an earlier poster. If you want it in my terms, then how about this: "The long term commercial viability of Linux desktop operating systems could be in grave peril after the market's leading vendor announced it is withdrawing from all currently available distribution channels other than direct online."
What Red Hat is saying is that Linux does not get onto the desktop via the boxed set, at least not in sufficient quantities for them to make money at it...Most people who need CDs either buy them for a small charge from someone who will burn them a set cheaply, or from outfits like Cheap Bytes, who sell low-cost CDs for various distros.
Yes, that is what Red Hat is saying, but the alternate distribution methods you mentioned don't get any money back to Red Hat Inc. either. Therefore with this upcoming change by market leader Red Hat the business model of companies marketing to the "Linux desktop" is going to be put under question until they find a profitable way that does.
That would be taking the code and using it in a proprietary product, but you seem to be saying (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that people would be illegally copying Red Hat. It is, of course, completely legal to copy Red Hat.
There are many instances where it is *NOT* legal to make unlimited copies of RH media, such as when you or your organization are attempting to subscribe to the enterprise editions like Advanced Server, at which point you are subject to the Red Hat EULA instead (whether you agree with it's legality or not):
4. REPORTING AND AUDIT. If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed Servers, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed Server...During the term of this Agreement and for one (1) year thereafter, Customer expressly grants to Red Hat the right to audit Customer's facilities and records from time to time in order to verify Customer's compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhlas_us.html
Also, even in cases where it may be legal, such as "Red Hat Linux", it is still unregulated duplication of the product that generates zero return revenue, meaning it's not a good plan for any for-profit business to expect to be able survive on.
No one was talking about RH Advanced Server, the product under discussion was the Red Hat boxed set that can be found on retail shelves. I've never seen RHAS there, have you? The original article also did not state or imply that they would stop selling media, deadtree documentation, etc (a boxed set, by any other name) for AS. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but the article didn't mention it.
Your line of thinking seems to be that discontinuing boxed sets of plain old, freely copyable Red Hat Linux will somehow increase piracy of the not-freely-copyable RHAS. If that is in fact what you are stating, would you please explain exactly how that is supposed to happen? There seems to be no logical connection at all between dropping boxed sets and people pirating RHAS. If that's not what you're saying, then just what are you trying to say?
Regarding "unregulated duplication of the product," the first thing that needs to be said is that it is not unregulated. Indeed, the governing license (GPL) regulates the situation by specifically giving anyone who has the software the right to copy and redistribute the software, in modified or unmodified form. You seem to be trying to some kind of connection between this copying and piracy, but that is completely wrong. Copying GPLed software is not in any respect piracy, it is merely the exercise of rights that you are specifically granted by that license.
Does that generate revenue for Red Hat? No, but it does the next best thing: it distributes their product at no cost to them. The fact that they are withdrawing the boxed sets means that they must be a money-loser and that RH does not expect that to change in the foreseeable future. So, they save a bunch of money by just making ISOs available and the existing network in the community downloads them and duplicates them for others. RH gets the same installed base, but without the cost of making all those boxed sets. Their bandwidth needs likely won't change, since it seems that hardly anyone buys the boxed sets anyway.
For a boxed-set vendor to make money off of those sets, they probably need to follow SuSE's model. That model probably stands in the way of market share, since downloading the individual packages and making ISOs is more work than most people want to do, but it apparently works for SuSE. It is apparently RH's judgement that download-only will work better for them than reversing their long-standing free ISO availablility would be (and the subsequent alienation of a lot of people who use RH). Time will tell whose strategy is better.
Simple. Some of us shop other places than Best Buy for our software:
www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.asp?EDC=391888
When these retail channels close, isos for software like this will be finding their way to kazaa a lot faster than they already are. Which a lot of linux guys will really like. Just not going to help Red Hat (who it looks like it might need some help) very much.
Presumably the marketing/bottom-line folks at RH have carefully considered the decision to cease boxed set sales. There *is* something romantic about the boxed sets, but I can understand their decision.
What does seem surprising (suspicious?) is the decision to leave package maintenance to the "developers themselves," without a period when the packages are under RH's control. This sounds a bit untenable, considering that RH's major value added feature is a distribution in which the (many) various components have undergone at least some kind of testing. I can't help but wonder how they will manage this.
Of course, opening up the development lists to the public seems like a positive move.
I guess we'll just have to wait until tomorrow to see what the details are...
-Carter
HAH!
I'd love to see Joe Consumer buying the OEM version of XP, but the truth of the matter is that they have to spend $110 for the UPGRADE version of XP Pro and ~$230 for the full version. Those OEM versions are not legal to purchase standalone (although I see them at computer shows all the time right next to the "Academic" versions of various apps).
End of line..